Edited by Arthur F. Kinney Poetics and Praxis, Understanding and Imagination The Collected Essays of O. B. Hardison Jr. The UniversitY'C;r'Georgia Press Athens & London . , 11".f .'11 ' .... ~ )~, . ' . Speaking the Speech: Shakespearean J?ialogue The cult of Shakespeare the poet began early and has co~tinued to flourish in the twentieth century. In The Poetry of Shakespeare's Plays F. E. H alliday concludes: "It follows .. that the plays must be read as we read the works of Milton or any other non·dramatic poet. To hear in a theatre a Shakespearean play that we do not know almost by heart is to miss half its beauty."1 Few Shakespeare scholars would go this far today. A more temperate view, which recognizes that the verse is intended pri­ marily for speaking, is offered by Bertram Joseph in Acting Shakespeare: "Verse speaking is a matter of expressing the sense and its implications and of producing melody. Both melody and meaning are i'nseparable from the structure of words in which they are both embodied. In the ac· tual speaking, emphasis is varied in order to 'make manifest' the precise sense .... "2 This comment strikes a reasonable balance. A speech act is a synthesis, not a mixture. Melody is simply the aesthetic value of the sound of the speech act. It is a corollary of speech, not a separable part, and it is present in al1 speech, whether in prose or in verse. The habit of thinking of melody as something separable from "precise sense" is misleading. Combined with veneration for Shakespeare the poet, it often leads in performance to what m~y be called "recitation." In recitation the irregu· lar, multi·valued stress patterns of speech flatten into the regular, mon9- . tonic beat of the iambic meter, and the effect of pauses in defining natural syntactical units is offset by a tendency to pause, if only briefly, at the end of each pentameter line. The result is hypnotic, the rhetorical equivalent of Muzak. Whole chunks of meaning arc swallowed up by the melody, The attention of the audience wanders until it is caught by a Famous Pass~ge and then wanders anew. Evidently the problem IS not unique to the twentieth century. Thomas Heywood seems to have had it in mind when he wrote in his Apology for Actors, ""Be . his pronunti· ation neuer so musicall and plausiuc, yet w.ithout a comely and elegant gesture, a gratious and a bewitching kinde of action ... I hold all the rest as nothing."3 ,8, IB2. POETICS AND PRAXIS I In a print-oriented culture it is natural to regard Shakespeare's plays as words on a page, a text. The Renaissance view was quite dif­ ferent. As Hamlet explains to the players, drama is a mirror held up to Nature. The remark is a Renaissance commonplace. If it is taken seri­ ously, it can tell us a great deal about the Renaissance understanding of drama. The mirror metaphor opposes life to .an image of life. In life we are continuously immersed in situations that cause responses. 1 enter a dining room and notice that the table is sec My response is a question: "\Vhat are we having for dinner?" In a play script this sequence is reversed. If the script lacks stage directions, like most Renaissance scripts, it will contain only the question. The modern director or actor must infer the table set­ tings from the speech. Once inferred they are included in the stage set, and when the play is performed an illusion is created. The table settings seem to the audience to cause the question, as they would in real life, al­ though for the director it was, in fact, the question that caused the table settings. The play is an artifice, an image in a mirror. A dramatic speech arises from a situation, which may be defined as an array of causes. Some of the causes are obvious from the speech itself, which acts in such cases as an indirect stage direction. When this is true, the task of inferring the causes is simple. Othello says "Keep up your bright swords." The speech indicates that the characters he is addressing have swords. Without the swords the speech would be absurd. Once the characters are given swords, however, it seems perfectly reasonable, like a speech in real life. Are not the speeches in a drama normally caused by other speeches? If character A asks "What day is today?" and character B replies "Wednes­ day," is nOt the question the cause of the answer? . , Yes and no. The question is one of the causes of the answer, but not necessarily the most important. Suppose the pla)'\vright wants to show that character B is a liar. The audience has learned previously that today is Monday. In this case dishonesty, which is a quality of character, will he the true cause of B's statement that today is Wednesday, and A's question merely a strategy to permit the dishonesty to be exhibited. If the dishon­ esty is not sufficiently obvious from the statement itself, B may wink at the audience while speaking the line. ' Suppose B says" Wednesday!" in an agitated wh isper. This is because Wednesday is the day when A and B plan to escape from prison. The es­ cape is part of the plot. It is the cause of B's agitation. The microphone hanging from the ceiling of the cell is the cause of the whisper. The micro­ phone is part of the set. Shakespearean Dialogue 183 If B shouts "Wednesday!" perhaps this is because A is hard of hearing. Perhaps A has been given a hearing aid by the prop department so that the cause cannot be missed. U B says "Wednesday" in an angry tone of voice, this may be because A has been pestering him. If B pauses after A's question and looks at a wall calendar, this may be because B is absent­ minded or distracted. Perhaps a calendar has been tacked to the wall of the set specifically so that B can look at it before replying. The word Wednesday is neutral. It has only the general meaning as­ signed to it in the dictionary. It does not take on a precise meaning until its causes have been discovered and incorporated into set, blocking, cos­ tume, gesture, expression, and voice inflection at the moment when it is spoken. Taken together, the precise meanings in a play express the mo­ tives and emotions which are the source of its illusion of life. II To discuss plays in this way requires thinking in terms of per­ formances rather than texts. But performances in the theatre arc ephem­ eral. At the end of its run a production ceases to exist. Reconstructions are possible on the basis of personal memories, reviews, promptbooks. and the like, but even the best reconstructions involve a great deal of un­ verifiable conjecture. Happily, this situation is now changing. Although there are fundamental differences between live theatre and movies and television, the growing body of Shakespeare on film and videotape allows performances of the latter type to be examined in minute detail. State­ ments about these recorded performances can be ri gorous, moreover, be­ cause they can be verified. The creation of an effective sequence of causes fo r a brief speech in a Shakespeare play is nicely illustrated by Olivier's film version of Hamlet. The speech in question is only three li nes. Usually these lines are spoken continuously, with twO brief pauses to separate the th ree sentences: Soft you now! The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons Be all my sins rememb'red. (1ll.i.88-9Q) The most obvious cause of this speech is the presence of Ophelia, who does not, at this point, have a line. The cause is visual rather than verbal. Most performances of Hamlet stOp there. in Olivier's film the lines are given additional causes. Hamlet is shown walking in a corridor. We know that he is convinced [hat Claudius is spy~ ing on him. He hears a noise but cannOt see who has made it. His suspi­ cions are immediately aroused. His line "Soft you nowl" means something 1&4 POETICS AND rRAXIS like "An unexpected event is happening; I must be careful." He then walks to the end of the corridor and sees Ophelia. She does not "enter" in this version of the play, but is "discovered." Hamlet is relieved and pleased. He exclaims, "The fair Ophelia!" He then walks to her and takes her arm. He notices that she is holding a book of religious devotions. It is the book Polan ius gave her before hiding behind the arras. When he gave it to hcr he remarked: Tis too much prov'd, that with devotion's visage And pious action we do sugar o'er The devil himself. (III.i·47-49) Olivier's decision to make Ophelia's book a devotional manual is justified by this speech, but it is not inevitable. The reason for Olivier's decision is that the devotional manual provides the cause of Hamlet's next words to Ophelia: "Nymph, in thy orisons I Be all my sins rememb'red." Instead of being spoken continuously, the speech in Olivier's version is broken by three extended pauses during which Haml~t (r) discovers Ophelia, (2) walks to her, and (3) notices her book. What is normally a rathet bland ttansition becomes, in this performance, a powerfully charged expression of themes that are at the center of the play.